Ars Technicast, Episode 17: Deconstructing The Hobbit

The new adaptation of Tolkien's book gets our Middle Earth nerdery going.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey finally arrived a week ago. For fans of J.R.R. Tolkien, the new film could be the best adaptation ever—or perhaps a movie that has lost the tone of the source material. In this episode of the Ars Technicast, we discuss the role The Hobbit played in Tolkien’s grand mythology of Middle Earth, and how Peter Jackson’s films have re-imagined The Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit to serve the needs of movie audiences. Peter Jackson has also caused some controversy with viewers by filming the movie in 48 frames per second. Cesar saw it in 48fps, and you might be surprised at his final verdict of the new technique. Host Senior Apple Editor Jacqui Cheng is joined by Staff Writer Andrew Cunningham, Lead Developer Lee Aylward, and Social Editor Cesar Torres. And yes, this podcast episode is full of spoilers, so if you don’t want to hear them, you have been warned.

Have you seen The Hobbit already? What did you think about the movie and the new 48fps projection? Share your own reviews with us in the comments.

Promoted Comments

Looking forward to HFR movies. I think most folks who don't 'like' 48fps are experiencing what I'm calling the "Wizard Of Oz effect." I believe that HFR exposes how our brains have been trained and the sometimes glaring deficits in existing presentation technology.

I bought the top end 2012 65 inch Panasonic plasma set at the start of football season. Although very good OOTB, it's now been calibrated by an ISF tech. I routinely see noise, artifacts, terrible EFX / CGI, and so on that are clearly the source material. For instance, my local CBS uses their spectrum to jam in extra channels and they compress the hell out of the HD feed. NFL games are great on CBS...until the snap of the ball. Fox is usually much better; rarely see block noise or other trash. Movies are even more startling. Encore is running Jurassic Park. Remember how awesome the dinosaurs were? On my set, they're CGI blobs stuck on the screen badly. Even current movies have "things behind the curtain" that don't bear close scrutiny. Hence, "Oz."

HFR probably does much the same. It's jarring and somehow 'WRONG' for some folks. Most people don't want to know how a magic trick works, so HFR may be pushing that kind of button.

Me? I can't wait. If not for girlfriend's schedule I'd have already seen it.

58 Reader Comments

I saw it a couple of days ago and I was ready to get disappointed but to my surprise I actually enjoyed the movie as much as any movie of the Lord of The Rings trilogy. I was fearing the 48fps would make it look like those motionflow enabled TVs but the movie was well executed. Is one of the first mayor movies released in 48fps and there is still a lot to learn like avoiding camera shaking and fast pans but ultimately I enjoy it.

In the case of 3D still bothers me the lost of luminosity thanks to the glasses, although the 3D wasn't distracting like other 3D movies that try too hard to make 3D effects.

I loved the 48fps experience. For me, as a film buff, the key was coming into it expecting it to be different and trying to keep in mind 24fps has a lot of motion blur built in that we have come to expect in cinema.

The first 5 minutes looked a bit odd, like it was on fast forward. After that, I simply enjoyed the clarity. It was a lot like seeing my first 1080p television or the first time I saw a movie with surround sound.

First and primary complaint is missing some great dialogue that Tolkien wrote and the shifting and changing scenes for no apparent reason. The whole "unexpected party" sequence at the beginning was very long, but didn't follow Tolkien's introduction of the dwarves, and I really missed it. Add to this the whole Radigast addition. No thank you.

Second complaint: The Jackson "impossible chase" scenes. The stone giants battle was too much, too close. The goblin chase (falling over and over again without serious harm) was too much. Fun once or twice, but now (if you include the LOTR movies) it has happened too much, too often, and I'm frankly bored with it.

Last (and least) were minor tweaks or liberties. The shift to the role of the white orc and wargs, meh. Ok, but not great. The glass moon-rune-reader of Elrond? What what THAT? Minor irritant, but just not cool.

That being said, I enjoyed the movie as a whole, and will likely watch it again. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a total Tolkien nerd, having read the LOTR and The Hobbit probably a dozen times each, and the Silmarillion twice at least. Keeping this in mind, it would be a very very tall order to sell any adaptation that isn't 'true to the books' for me.

In conclusion, I'd probably recommend the movie to everyone, but warn those who are 'true fans' of the books.

Looking forward to HFR movies. I think most folks who don't 'like' 48fps are experiencing what I'm calling the "Wizard Of Oz effect." I believe that HFR exposes how our brains have been trained and the sometimes glaring deficits in existing presentation technology.

I bought the top end 2012 65 inch Panasonic plasma set at the start of football season. Although very good OOTB, it's now been calibrated by an ISF tech. I routinely see noise, artifacts, terrible EFX / CGI, and so on that are clearly the source material. For instance, my local CBS uses their spectrum to jam in extra channels and they compress the hell out of the HD feed. NFL games are great on CBS...until the snap of the ball. Fox is usually much better; rarely see block noise or other trash. Movies are even more startling. Encore is running Jurassic Park. Remember how awesome the dinosaurs were? On my set, they're CGI blobs stuck on the screen badly. Even current movies have "things behind the curtain" that don't bear close scrutiny. Hence, "Oz."

HFR probably does much the same. It's jarring and somehow 'WRONG' for some folks. Most people don't want to know how a magic trick works, so HFR may be pushing that kind of button.

Me? I can't wait. If not for girlfriend's schedule I'd have already seen it.

EDIT: went to pick up tickets and discovered I could see IMAX 3D at 24fps or HFR 3D. Of course, went for the HFR 3D. Theaters need to figure out how to market this better. Their website was certainly unclear about the 'flavors' available. Kudos to those who suggested checking ahead.

UPDATE...SAW THE MOVIE !

HFR 3D: while not seamless, for a first effort, very good. Girlfriend and I felt 'jarring' issues cited by some were more like minor quibbles. She had slight headache after, I didn't notice any ill effects. The brightness and contrast for 3D was outstanding.

MOVIE: glorious film. Found myself smiling like an idiot at the end credits. I actually like The Hobbit a little more than LOTR. I think it's the lighter tone of the story and acting continuity - you have the "old friend" buzz coupled with a great adventure film. No spoilers or details, but I absolutely recommend the film. Was great in HFR 3D but it'd be great as a slideshow.

First and primary complaint is missing some great dialogue that Tolkien wrote and the shifting and changing scenes for no apparent reason. The whole "unexpected party" sequence at the beginning was very long, but didn't follow Tolkien's introduction of the dwarves, and I really missed it. Add to this the whole Radigast addition. No thank you.

Second complaint: The Jackson "impossible chase" scenes. The stone giants battle was too much, too close. The goblin chase (falling over and over again without serious harm) was too much. Fun once or twice, but now (if you include the LOTR movies) it has happened too much, too often, and I'm frankly bored with it.

Last (and least) were minor tweaks or liberties. The shift to the role of the white orc and wargs, meh. Ok, but not great. The glass moon-rune-reader of Elrond? What what THAT? Minor irritant, but just not cool.

That being said, I enjoyed the movie as a whole, and will likely watch it again. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a total Tolkien nerd, having read the LOTR and The Hobbit probably a dozen times each, and the Silmarillion twice at least. Keeping this in mind, it would be a very very tall order to sell any adaptation that isn't 'true to the books' for me.

In conclusion, I'd probably recommend the movie to everyone, but warn those who are 'true fans' of the books.

Peter Jackson came straight out and said that he and New Line Cinema weren't trying to make this as epic as the trilogy, hence they had a little bit more fun with it. Also, the Hobbit was originally a children's book so why not include some of the silliness in the movie for say children. Like Gandalf said in the movie when he embellished Bilbo's Took predecessor, every good story needs embellishment. Lighten up a bit.

First and primary complaint is missing some great dialogue that Tolkien wrote and the shifting and changing scenes for no apparent reason. The whole "unexpected party" sequence at the beginning was very long, but didn't follow Tolkien's introduction of the dwarves, and I really missed it. Add to this the whole Radigast addition. No thank you.

Second complaint: The Jackson "impossible chase" scenes. The stone giants battle was too much, too close. The goblin chase (falling over and over again without serious harm) was too much. Fun once or twice, but now (if you include the LOTR movies) it has happened too much, too often, and I'm frankly bored with it.

Last (and least) were minor tweaks or liberties. The shift to the role of the white orc and wargs, meh. Ok, but not great. The glass moon-rune-reader of Elrond? What what THAT? Minor irritant, but just not cool.

That being said, I enjoyed the movie as a whole, and will likely watch it again. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a total Tolkien nerd, having read the LOTR and The Hobbit probably a dozen times each, and the Silmarillion twice at least. Keeping this in mind, it would be a very very tall order to sell any adaptation that isn't 'true to the books' for me.

In conclusion, I'd probably recommend the movie to everyone, but warn those who are 'true fans' of the books.

Peter Jackson came straight out and said that he and New Line Cinema weren't trying to make this as epic as the trilogy, hence they had a little bit more fun with it. Also, the Hobbit was originally a children's book so why not include some of the silliness in the movie for say children. Like Gandalf said in the movie when he embellished Bilbo's Took predecessor, every good story needs embellishment. Lighten up a bit.

Edit: grammar and readability

Sure, I accept that with any book adapted to a movie, and I stand by my comments. Like I said, I'd recommend the movie, but warn those who might want more Tolkien and less Jackson.

1) The entire troll fight. Blowing his nose on the hobbit? Really?2) The entire Stone Giant fight.3) Most of the chase through the Goblin King's lair with the dwarves. Worst was the massive fall into the chasm when the Goblin King's dead body lands on them. "Are you kidding me?"

The problem with HFR for the "cineastic folks" is that it looks a lot like video. For video has always been HFR. Movies have been 24p and legions of amateur/indie filmmakers spend decades trying to emulate that look on video.

Video is associated with cheap, be it soap operas, low budget movies or anything real (news, sports, etc...) The BBC et al. have always been shooting their great documentaries on 16 or 35mm too.

Film has a certain asthetic to it and you can't just unlearn a preference for it on the spot. I also find people have varying degrees of detection for the effect. My girlfriend never sees it, I however spot the video-look immediately.

I, on the other hand, seem to have a lack of spider sense when it comes to low framerates. I don't notice anything wrong with like 25 frames in a videogame and have never understood the lust for 60+ fps.

First and primary complaint is missing some great dialogue that Tolkien wrote and the shifting and changing scenes for no apparent reason. The whole "unexpected party" sequence at the beginning was very long, but didn't follow Tolkien's introduction of the dwarves, and I really missed it. Add to this the whole Radigast addition. No thank you.

Second complaint: The Jackson "impossible chase" scenes. The stone giants battle was too much, too close. The goblin chase (falling over and over again without serious harm) was too much. Fun once or twice, but now (if you include the LOTR movies) it has happened too much, too often, and I'm frankly bored with it.

Last (and least) were minor tweaks or liberties. The shift to the role of the white orc and wargs, meh. Ok, but not great. The glass moon-rune-reader of Elrond? What what THAT? Minor irritant, but just not cool.

That being said, I enjoyed the movie as a whole, and will likely watch it again. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a total Tolkien nerd, having read the LOTR and The Hobbit probably a dozen times each, and the Silmarillion twice at least. Keeping this in mind, it would be a very very tall order to sell any adaptation that isn't 'true to the books' for me.

In conclusion, I'd probably recommend the movie to everyone, but warn those who are 'true fans' of the books.

And as a Tolkien nerd, surely your senses were tingling that Jackson had managed embellish and added in the story all the side-notes and offhand references that Tolkien had written in his various published and unpublished works during this period of Middle Earth.

From a story perspective, the parts that annoyed me were the turning of "oh crap, we're trapped" into fights (Trolls, Goblins,) and the turning of pure accidents into purposeful things ("Time" riddle, Eagles being summoned.)

Plus, of course, as one friend called it, "the pod race" in the Goblin cave.

Being that the book was a true children's book, the addition of slapstick wasn't too big a deal to me, they kept the more serious things, too.

From the technical side... I went to a 3D IMAX HFR showing. Sat one row back from "screen exactly fills my view" distance, center. The rows in front of me were empty. So 'perfect' viewing conditions.

High Frame Rate took me about 10-15 minutes to get used to. Once I had, it didn't bother me other than a VERY few times during "high action" (the cartooney bits.) For the other scenes, it actually HELPED to me. Specifically because it made it feel like watching a BBC drama on US public broadcasting. And The Hobbit was perfect for that feeling. It HELPED me suspend disbelief during the more expository parts (Bilbo's house, Rivendell, etc,) because it no longer felt like a movie, but more like a borderline-documentary.

The problem with HFR for the "cineastic folks" is that it looks a lot like video. For video has always been HFR. Movies have been 24p and legions of amateur/indie filmmakers spend decades trying to emulate that look on video.

Video is associated with cheap, be it soap operas, low budget movies or anything real (news, sports, etc...) The BBC et al. have always been shooting their great documentaries on 16 or 35mm too.

Film has a certain asthetic to it and you can't just unlearn a preference for it on the spot. I also find people have varying degrees of detection for the effect. My girlfriend never sees it, I however spot the video-look immediately.

I, on the other hand, seem to have a lack of spider sense when it comes to low framerates. I don't notice anything wrong with like 25 frames in a videogame and have never understood the lust for 60+ fps.

That explains some of it, but the new Hobbit movies has a lot of people complaining about ruined immersion. Fake things look more fake when you get a better look at them. Also filmmakers use even shorter (choppier) exposures and sometimes cut out whole frames in situations where they want action to look choppy. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzua8qnTRrQ (commentary starts about 4:30)

First and primary complaint is missing some great dialogue that Tolkien wrote and the shifting and changing scenes for no apparent reason. The whole "unexpected party" sequence at the beginning was very long, but didn't follow Tolkien's introduction of the dwarves, and I really missed it. Add to this the whole Radigast addition. No thank you.

Second complaint: The Jackson "impossible chase" scenes. The stone giants battle was too much, too close. The goblin chase (falling over and over again without serious harm) was too much. Fun once or twice, but now (if you include the LOTR movies) it has happened too much, too often, and I'm frankly bored with it.

Last (and least) were minor tweaks or liberties. The shift to the role of the white orc and wargs, meh. Ok, but not great. The glass moon-rune-reader of Elrond? What what THAT? Minor irritant, but just not cool.

That being said, I enjoyed the movie as a whole, and will likely watch it again. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a total Tolkien nerd, having read the LOTR and The Hobbit probably a dozen times each, and the Silmarillion twice at least. Keeping this in mind, it would be a very very tall order to sell any adaptation that isn't 'true to the books' for me.

In conclusion, I'd probably recommend the movie to everyone, but warn those who are 'true fans' of the books.

And as a Tolkien nerd, surely your senses were tingling that Jackson had managed embellish and added in the story all the side-notes and offhand references that Tolkien had written in his various published and unpublished works during this period of Middle Earth.

Oh absolutely! I apologize for obviously coming across as all negative. No, there were aspects of Jackson's adaptation that I did really like. In particular, the references to the Necromancer and a fuller back story of where Gandalf went (will go in the next movie) and why he "abandons" the company at the entrance of Mirkwood. There ARE lots of redeeming qualities to the film, but I still must warn of the not-so-good sections. I won't re-post my comments, but again stand by them, my three 'levels of irritation' I experienced while watching the movie.

All i can say is i shudder to think of what the "Director's Extended Version" or whatever they call it will be like. The actual movie felt like an under-edited extended version, with plenty of over-long repetitive scenes.

What i wrote elsewhere:

The Hobbit movie: pretty much what you would expect from the makers of the LotR movies, in terms of creatures, scenery, props, backstory cut-scenes, and very long play times. It differs in that it has songs, a lighter, more juvenile tone, sometimes plain silly- when it is not trying to be epic, and the action tends more toward the over-the-top stuff in Pirates of the Caribbean.

As a Tolkien and CGI nerd, i wouldn't have missed it. After being both very pleased and highly annoyed by the LotR movies, i lowered my expectations, and reasoned that the Hobbit-- a more simpler, straightforward story, should be easier to adapt to a movie.

Most of what bothered me was not what i expected to be bothered by. As an only occasional theatre goer, the big screen is somewhat special, an thus boosts my enjoyment. But i was bored at several places. It started out with an overlong frame with old Bilbo and Frodo from LotR chatting in Bag End. In short it felt more like the "extended edition" than something cut to movie length. There were multiple long action scenes where our heroes alternated running away and madly charging forward for no particular reason, but that the plot decided it was time to switch things up. A long sequence with Stone Giants (made of stone) throwing rocks and standard cliff-edge "peril" But very little feeling of peril. Falling repeatedly dozens of feet onto stone left them briefly stunned, etc.

From the publicity images, i was bothered by the non-dwarvish appearance of many of the dwarves. It didn't bother me much in the movie, perhaps because there were no humans.

More critically, the relationships between the characters felt contrived. I could believe in the friendship between Frodo and Sam, and various other characters in LotR movies. Not so between Bilbo and the Dwarves. Also Bilbo's personal journey from stay-at-home to lesser hero, was put on a shorter time-table, by the end of the first movie he's advanced to greater action-hero-warrior status than he achieved at the end of the Book

"Riddles in the Dark" with Gollum was awesome though. That part was gripping.

Looking forward to HFR movies. I think most folks who don't 'like' 48fps are experiencing what I'm calling the "Wizard Of Oz effect." I believe that HFR exposes how our brains have been trained and the sometimes glaring deficits in existing presentation technology.

I bought the top end 2012 65 inch Panasonic plasma set at the start of football season. Although very good OOTB, it's now been calibrated by an ISF tech. I routinely see noise, artifacts, terrible EFX / CGI, and so on that are clearly the source material. For instance, my local CBS uses their spectrum to jam in extra channels and they compress the hell out of the HD feed. NFL games are great on CBS...until the snap of the ball. Fox is usually much better; rarely see block noise or other trash. Movies are even more startling. Encore is running Jurassic Park. Remember how awesome the dinosaurs were? On my set, they're CGI blobs stuck on the screen badly. Even current movies have "things behind the curtain" that don't bear close scrutiny. Hence, "Oz."

HFR probably does much the same. It's jarring and somehow 'WRONG' for some folks. Most people don't want to know how a magic trick works, so HFR may be pushing that kind of button.

Me? I can't wait. If not for girlfriend's schedule I'd have already seen it.

If you are seeing it in IMAX, double check your tickets to make sure it is HFR. There are only a handful of theaters AFAIK that are showing IMAX 3D HFR, it isn't *every* IMAX theater. Here's a list you can check.

All i can say is i shudder to think of what the "Director's Extended Version" or whatever they call it will be like. The actual movie felt like an under-edited extended version, with plenty of over-long repetitive scenes.

I think it is worth seeing in 48FPS just for the spectacle of it, and then people can decide. It's not the 'next big thing' by any means because of how much people will almost certainly like/hate it.

Given the opportunity I'd go see more movies in this format. Some really visceral over the top buy brutally realistic movies like the latest Dredd could be incredible if done well. It's a house of cards though, poor FX and cutting corners are exposed thoroughly at the higher framerate.

Wrote the following up for some friends, so I might as well chime in here...

---------

I watched the movie both in 24fps IMAX and later again in 48fps IMAX so I could compare them, and has a strongly mixed reaction to 48fps. Here are my observations:

- the 48fps truly enhanced the clarity of Jackson's sweeping camera approach, allowing both a greater amount of camera movement as well as on-screen action to be both clear and legible; most of the larger action and panoramic set-pieces strongly benefited from this approach

- 3D was more immersive at 48fps, with occasional exceptions when the clarity popped characters out from the background excessively (some are referring to this as a "pop-up book" effect, and it's jarring though it only happens about 5% of the time)

- at 48fps, many scenes appeared to be improperly lit, creating a stagebound effect that was not evident (or at worse barely evident) in the 24fps version; this even varied within scenes (i.e. from some angles the scene was convincing, and from other angles the scene read as stagey); this occurred both during dialog scenes (such as the party at Bag End) as well as action scenes (such as the troll supper and stone giants battle), and was terribly distracting

- in the 48fps version, many exterior scenes appeared overlit (i.e. too much light was applied and the whites were "blown out", flattening the image); this occurred mostly during the escape down the sides of the Misty Mountains during sunset; this also occurred during staged scenes simulating bright exterior light (the gates of Erbeor and people on the streets of Dale); these effects were unnoticeable or present but not distracting in the 24fps version

- the 24 fps version read as being shot relatively "softer" than the (also shot at 24fps) LOTR films; I'm assuming this is a result of adding artificial motion blur as part of the 48->24 conversion process; this was especially apparent every time a map was shown in close-up, though high action scenes (such as the battle outside of Moria) suffered from this as well

- in 48fps, several scenes of close-up movement appeared oddly sped-up (in particular Ian Holm moving about Bag End in the early scenes); this was very disconcerting and comically distracted from his performance

My assessment is that 48fps is a promising but immature set of technologies and techniques; it's impressive, but (as with early HD), lighting, makeup, and set dressing approaches will need to be refined to work in conjunction with it. I should admit a suspicion that using grain-free digital capture (instead of film) may have as much to do with the lighting issues than 48fps (not to mention 3D), though I doubt the additional clarity did the poor lighting any favors.

I do plan to see the movie once more in 48fps, to see if mental re-training at some level is actually an issue... I rather doubt this will make a difference, as my reactions to the 48fps version varied radically throughout the lengthy run-time of the movie... but I'd be happy to be wrong.

For the moment, the trade-off seems straightforward (with this particular movie):- see the 24fps version if you want the most visually consistent experience, and trade-off some clarity during the high action/movement scenes- see the 48fps version if you want to best enjoy the action setpieces and panoramas, but be prepared for some jarring inconsistencies

As for myself, I'd tend to the former; I rarely have problems with visually aggressive/experimental cinematic techniques, but the jarring inconsistencies weren't appropriate in this context and continuously pulled me out the movie.

Others may choose 48fps (and I think it's worthwhile for the novelty), but promoting this particular movie as representing the future of cinema does the 48fps/digital movement few favors, as its showcases the flaws of these technologies and techniques almost as much as it does their features.

I wonder if there's rough parallel here with the drive towards photorealism in games, where the latest improvements are considered amazing successes for a short while, but in a few years are looked upon as laughable, while more stylized approaches tend to hold up better over time. In both cases the experimentation is worthwhile, but it can easily start to put the cart before the horse.

Kudos for Jackson for pushing the envelope, but I think he failed to deliver on his technological promises. I hope that he is able to work more of this out with the sequels.

I've seen the movie a few times. I am surprised to say I really like the pacing and length. It's not good for the young ones - as it's too long and a little too scary at times. However, my 8 year old was able to cope quite well. He laughed at the childlike scenes (blowing of the nose and the burping), which helped him relate to the story a little more.In my view, each character and scene served a purpose - as explained in all of Tolkien's writings (not just the Hobbit). Jackson also tried to address some inconsistencies in the source material, and to allow for the two different styles of stories to be bridged.I'm glad that I'm not a diehard Tolkien fan because I can just enjoy the movies for what they are, rather than look for a small aspect if the legend and blow it out of all proportion (eg. Tom Bombadil or the intro to the dwarves).Overall, I highly recommend this movie. From what I understand, it is VERY close to the source material, and an excellent compromise to allow a wide variety of audience members to appreciate it.The funniest quote I saw was from a diehard Tolkien fan who referred to a character called "Smog". I hope for his/her sake, that was an iPhone auto-correction, lest my opinion of that "expert" be lowered.

1. Why 3D 48fps? I think it addresses the problem with most 3-D movies. It is well known that many viewers of 3-D movies have problems with eye strain (what happens to me), dizziness and even nausea.- The Hobbit in 3D 48fps was crystal clear with no blurring or out of focus images. It was probably the most enjoyable 3-D movie experience I've ever had.

2. Changing the story from the book; Peter Jackson's Tolkien movies do not follow the books word for word. I expected changes from the book in The Hobbit movie.- But sometimes the additions came from Tolkien's mythology such as the White Council meeting from The Lord of the Rings.

3. The Hobbit is a children's book with silly humor. I expected a movie that was more directed at children which had silly humor.

4. Big budget movies have lots of action because that's what most of the audience wants. I expected big action scenes in The Hobbit.

I'm eager to see it this weekend but my expectations are pretty low at this point having heard all the horrible reviews about it being filled with silly Three-Stooges like slapstick.

Go back and read the section with the trolls. They are beating on each other like you would see in a 3 Stooges short. It's not an addition of slapstick, it's actually reasonably true to the book's feel. Accidentally using a hobbit as a handkerchief may be over the top, but I just had fun w/the scene

The problem with HFR for the "cineastic folks" is that it looks a lot like video. For video has always been HFR. Movies have been 24p and legions of amateur/indie filmmakers spend decades trying to emulate that look on video.

Video is associated with cheap, be it soap operas, low budget movies or anything real (news, sports, etc...) The BBC et al. have always been shooting their great documentaries on 16 or 35mm too.

Wouldn't it be very easy to create 24p out of a video signal? Then suddenly video would look great?

Lots of discussions on HFR going on on the internet. It seems to me everyone is just reasoning without much science behind it. Like "LP sounds better than CD" kind of discussions. No, LP doesn't sound better, but some LP's were just recorded very well and not compressed to the limit. How can we judge HFR on only one movie? There are so much factors involved in 'making it look real'. If the make-up didn't seem right, maybe the make-up artists were just bad?

I enjoyed Michael Mann's digital video work in Collateral, Miami Vice and Public Enemies - the combining of news and digital cine camera footage, deep focus, high gain and ambient light were creative uses of a new medium. Peter Jackson's use of video wasn't such a big stretch. I saw The Hobbit in 48fps Dolby 3D and I thought it was great.

It took only 5 minutes for me to get past the weird motion rendering in the intro. Everything after that looked a lot more lifelike than the juddering, strobing 24fps that cinema has adhered to for the past century. 24fps isn't an aesthetic, it's a technical limitation turned into a commandment

Camera pans and fast movement were smooth at 48fps and much more lifelike than the fake motion estimation stuff on new TVs, probably because the material was actually shot that way. The exterior shots at Hobbiton, when the party were leaving the Shire and at Rivendell were incredibly immersive, like watching a David Attenborough documentary in sharp 3D. Too bad the popup cartoon effect showed up in too many action scenes with deep focus and CGI, especially during the goblin chase at the end. The less to be said of the rabbit sled, the better...

As for the movie itself, the long intro was a nice way to tie it together to LOTR and to justify the reasons for going to Erebor. The movie even starts on the same day as The Fellowship of The Ring. The dwarf dinner singalong was a bit silly but the lament to Erebor was beautifully done. Martin Freeman's Bilbo and Richard Armitage's Thorin were standout performances - Bilbo as a reluctant yet optimistic hero and Thorin as the exiled king who can barely keep his temper from blowing up. It's a nice contrast to the more morose Frodo and Aragorn, the reluctant heir in LOTR. Ghollum was nicely done but I thought the riddle scene could have been given a more sinister light.

Unfortunately, there were a lot of action scenes like the goblin chase that dragged on and felt like outtakes from Pirates of the Carribean. It's one thing to have a silly scene in a book, it's another to have it translated on film.

From what I understand, it is VERY close to the source material, and an excellent compromise to allow a wide variety of audience members to appreciate it.

It is absolutely not very close to the source material other than in very wide strokes. Jackson made a lot of changes, whether to actual story or tone of scenes. He turned Bilbo from a timid Hobbit to charging wargs and goblins, sword drawn, in a blink of an eye. The entire point of the Hobbit was Bilbo's growth across the entire journey, and Jackson super-charged it. He turned dwarves who were struggling with needing help to recover their kingdom into a band of super-heroes.

There was far too much comic relief. But perhaps the most unforgivable sin of the entire film was bad CGI. Not universally by any means, but there were scenes that were laughably bad.

Felt like Bilbo described himself in Lord of the Rings (inexact quote), "thin and stretched, like butter spread too thin". Padding, padding and more padding.

An immense irony: we've been repeatedly told in the extra DVD materials that Lord of the Rings had to drop a lot of material in order to be completed in 3 movies that would be generally watchable (as opposed to feeding the habit of people like myself with a LOTR monkey on our backs), and justify the investment financially; but now we see the opposite: a single slim kids book stretched to 3 long movies, with lots of hamburger helper added. Please redress this imbalance, someone!

My first IMAX and the screen wasn't as big and wonderful as I'd been led to expect. A brand-new theatre, opened just about when The Hobbit was released, so should be no old-tech issues. Do we have "IMAX-lite" here in Bellingham WA?

The 3D mostly wasn't as annoying as I expected, and there were few artifacts due to the tech, though occasionally it felt like 3D for the sake of 3D, and there were times I longed for a big 2D screen instead, as when the butterfly flitted out of the screen into my nose.

But Orc-chase after Orc and Warg-chase after Orc chase after Orc and Warg-chase or whatever in quick succession, all going at relativistic speeds and all featuring impossible falls in which no one is injured, got quite wearing. About an hour from the end I found myself saying (out loud! in a movie theatre!) "just get on with it, wouldja?"

Radaghast was the Jar-Jar Binks of The Hobbit. Retribution to Tolkien-nerds. Puhleeze!

So is there a demonstrated opportunity for a movie treatment of The Silmarillion? I know there isn't, but let me dream...

I went to see it last night with the wife. She doesn't do 3D at all, gives her headaches all the time, so we saw 2D. Maybe the 48fps version will help this. I'll try and see if I'll get her to go to this version if she wants to see it again.

Me, I found parts of it boring enough to doze off during the movie. I missed almost the entire Gollum scene/Goblin King scene. I vaguely remember them leaving Rivendale, so that's probably where I started to doze.

Cesar Torres / Cesar is the Social Editor at Ars Technica. His areas of expertise are in online communities, human-computer interaction, usability, and e-reader technology. Cesar lives in New York City.